[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Yes, that is true. Johann Gottfried Conradi was a publisher in Francfurt/Oder. There are other books, that had been published by him, as Memorabilia Brandenburgica oder Brandenburgische Denckwürdigkeiten ... Franckfurt an der Oder, bey Joh. Gottfried Conradi He probably lived in Stettin and died in 1745, as someone else took his publishing house. So again most probable no pseudonym or fantasy name ;-). Best regards Markus Am 18.09.18 um 23:27 schrieb r.turov...@gmail.com: Wasn’t Conradi a professional publisher? RT http://turovsky.org Feci quod potui. Faciant meliora potentes. On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:37 PM, Mathias Rösel wrote: Johann Gottfried Conradi published the pieces in "his" lute book. But he wasn't the composer. Perhaps his name was a pseudonym. Greetings Rainer Rainer Waldeck Hauptstraße 52 2020 Raschala Österreich -- Markus Lutz Schulstraße 11 88422 Bad Buchau Tel 0 75 82 / 92 62 89 Fax 0 75 82 / 92 62 90 Mail mar...@gmlutz.de To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Wasn’t Conradi a professional publisher? RT http://turovsky.org Feci quod potui. Faciant meliora potentes. > On Sep 18, 2018, at 4:37 PM, Mathias Rösel wrote: > > Johann Gottfried Conradi published the pieces in "his" lute book. But he > wasn't the composer. Perhaps his name was a pseudonym. > > Greetings Rainer > >> Rainer Waldeck >> Hauptstraße 52 >> 2020 Raschala >> Österreich >> >> >> An der Villa 7 >> 27628 Hagen im Bremischen >> OT Offenwarden >> Deutschland >> >>> Am 17.09.2018 um 21:22 schrieb Mathias Rösel : >>> >>> Well, it does have to do a bit with lute music. >>> >>> There was a theory that the music published by Le Sage de Riche >>> (Breslau, 1695) was not composed by him because the author of that >>> theory couldn't find further evidence for the existence of Le Sage. >>> >>> I objected that according to a remark in Emil Vogl's article on the >>> angélique (Die Angelika und ihre Musik, 1974), one of Falkenhagen's >>> sons studied the lute with Le Sage in Breslau. But the conspiracy >>> author dismissed my objection, saying that Vogl's remark was "not >>> authoritative" (nicht belastbar). >>> >>> The same pattern of thinking was applied to another lute composer, >>> Jacques Bittner (Jakob Büttner), by the same conspiracy author. No >>> evidence for Bittner's existence, so no Bittner at all. The true >>> composer, he said, was the dedicatee of Bittner's lute book, Pierre de >>> Treyenfels who purportedly hadn't wished to publish his compositions >>> under his own name, as he belonged to the nobility. >>> >>> Mathias >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> Gesendet mit der [1]Telekom Mail App >>> --- Original-Nachricht --- >>> Von: T.J. Sellari >>> Betreff: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language >>> Datum: 17.09.2018, 19:36 Uhr >>> An: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu >>> >>> I hope we might include Shakespeare scholars in the group of "thinking" >>> people who have considered this question; they indeed have made the >>> relevant scholarship a focus of their careers. As I'm sure many on this >>> list know already, no scholar proposes that Shakespeare wrote every >>> word of the plays attributed to him. On many plays, he had >>> collaborators, and scholars continue to dedicate considerable effort to >>> trying to figure out the scope and nature of his collaborations. (See, >>> for example, Sir Brian Vickers' _Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical >>> Study of Five Collaborative Plays_.) To argue that the case for >>> Shakespeare as the sole author of all of his works is yet to be proven >>> misses the point entirely; nobody is trying to prove it, because nobody >>> believes it. But that is not to accept the far-fetched idea that a >>> group of collaborators wrote all the works. There's only "thinking" >>> behind this idea, and absolutely no evidence. It is literally a >>> historical conspiracy theory. Shapiro's book explains why. >>> Perhaps this issue has nothing to do with lute music, but I assume that >>> members of this list are interested in historical accuracy in any case. >>> The "informed belief" that Shakespeare's works were written by a >>> committee is actually very poorly informed. Since I have learned a >>> great deal from this list, I thought I should contribute a small bit of >>> more reliable information when I got the chance. >>> Tom >>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:41 AM Ron Andrico >>> <[1][2]praelu...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> I'm familiar with Shapiro's work. The authorship question >>> indeed. It >>> is a question and not a given. Some like to say the man from >>> Stratford >>> was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works of >>> Shakespeare. That is a theory that has yet to be proven, no >>> matter >>> what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like to >>> propose. >>> A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it >>> against the physical reality of the amount of time required to >>> produce >>> all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William >>> Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. Then a >>> thinking >>> person considers how perso
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Johann Gottfried Conradi published the pieces in "his" lute book. But he wasn't the composer. Perhaps his name was a pseudonym. Greetings Rainer > Rainer Waldeck > Hauptstraße 52 > 2020 Raschala > Österreich > > > An der Villa 7 > 27628 Hagen im Bremischen > OT Offenwarden > Deutschland > >> Am 17.09.2018 um 21:22 schrieb Mathias Rösel : >> >> Well, it does have to do a bit with lute music. >> >> There was a theory that the music published by Le Sage de Riche >> (Breslau, 1695) was not composed by him because the author of that >> theory couldn't find further evidence for the existence of Le Sage. >> >> I objected that according to a remark in Emil Vogl's article on the >> angélique (Die Angelika und ihre Musik, 1974), one of Falkenhagen's >> sons studied the lute with Le Sage in Breslau. But the conspiracy >> author dismissed my objection, saying that Vogl's remark was "not >> authoritative" (nicht belastbar). >> >> The same pattern of thinking was applied to another lute composer, >> Jacques Bittner (Jakob Büttner), by the same conspiracy author. No >> evidence for Bittner's existence, so no Bittner at all. The true >> composer, he said, was the dedicatee of Bittner's lute book, Pierre de >> Treyenfels who purportedly hadn't wished to publish his compositions >> under his own name, as he belonged to the nobility. >> >> Mathias >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> Gesendet mit der [1]Telekom Mail App >> --- Original-Nachricht --- >> Von: T.J. Sellari >> Betreff: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language >> Datum: 17.09.2018, 19:36 Uhr >> An: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu >> >> I hope we might include Shakespeare scholars in the group of "thinking" >> people who have considered this question; they indeed have made the >> relevant scholarship a focus of their careers. As I'm sure many on this >> list know already, no scholar proposes that Shakespeare wrote every >> word of the plays attributed to him. On many plays, he had >> collaborators, and scholars continue to dedicate considerable effort to >> trying to figure out the scope and nature of his collaborations. (See, >> for example, Sir Brian Vickers' _Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical >> Study of Five Collaborative Plays_.) To argue that the case for >> Shakespeare as the sole author of all of his works is yet to be proven >> misses the point entirely; nobody is trying to prove it, because nobody >> believes it. But that is not to accept the far-fetched idea that a >> group of collaborators wrote all the works. There's only "thinking" >> behind this idea, and absolutely no evidence. It is literally a >> historical conspiracy theory. Shapiro's book explains why. >> Perhaps this issue has nothing to do with lute music, but I assume that >> members of this list are interested in historical accuracy in any case. >> The "informed belief" that Shakespeare's works were written by a >> committee is actually very poorly informed. Since I have learned a >> great deal from this list, I thought I should contribute a small bit of >> more reliable information when I got the chance. >> Tom >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:41 AM Ron Andrico >> <[1][2]praelu...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> I'm familiar with Shapiro's work. The authorship question >> indeed. It >> is a question and not a given. Some like to say the man from >> Stratford >> was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works of >> Shakespeare. That is a theory that has yet to be proven, no >> matter >> what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like to >> propose. >> A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it >> against the physical reality of the amount of time required to >> produce >> all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William >> Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. Then a >> thinking >> person considers how persons of noble rank would refrain from >> publishing their work (Sidney's work was published posthumously). >> And >> a thinking person observes how authors and musicians would >> participate >> in a salon atmosphere under the patronage of someone like Lucy >> Countess >> of Bedford. >> I have had the opportunity to delve into the subject, and the >> evidence >> points to work produced by more than one a
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
> On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:40 AM, Roman Turovsky wrote: > > The computer analysis of Shakespearian vocabulary that pinned it on a single > individual from Warwickshire That rules out Shakespeare, who was married. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, none of them present any evidence
at all that a group of writers collectively wrote the works attributed
to Shakespeare. We already know other writers crafted parts of some of
those plays. Perhaps a snippet from one of the links you sent
summarizes the situation best: "Elizabethan theatre was fundamentally
collaborative in a way that the sole focus on Shakespeare has left most
professors and producers reluctant to acknowledge." The first part is
correct, but "most professors" are certainly not reluctant to
acknowledge it--at least not the ones I know. Derek Jacobi is a great
actor, but, as far as I know, he has not been involved in any research
on a collective that wrote the works of Shakespeare. The emphasis of
these conspiracy theories--as the BBC article calls them--is always on
_missing_ evidence. But all the positive evidence we have points to
Shakespeare as an author; there is no positive evidence of any
collective of writers producing Shakepeare's works. That--and not the
influence of the CIA--is why it is a conspiracy theory.
Tom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:51 PM Ron Andrico <[1]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
No time to present more information because I'm busy scribbling,
but
here are some links to words by others who, like me, have
actually been
involved in theater.
[1][2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6985917.stm
[2][3]https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/may/01/shakespeare-had-
help-t
homas-middleton
[3][4]https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/theater/l-shakespeare-by-co
mmitte
e-721050.html
__
From: [5]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu <[6]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
on behalf
of howard posner <[7]howardpos...@ca.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:43 AM
To: Lute net
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Ron Andrico <[8]praelu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare, it's just
plain
silly to think he actually wrote the canon commonly attributed to
his
name. He was a player, a station lower than that of a
professional
musician.
He was a landowner, a station rather higher than a professional
musician.
There are all sorts of indications in the Shakespeare plays that
the
author had working-class/agrarian/merchant background.
When Hamlet tells Horatio, "There's a divinity that shapes our
ends,
rough-hew them how we will," he uses terms that gardeners (or
hedge-workers, anyway) were still using in the 20th century, and
for
all I know, the 21st. His characters will talk of sheep as
actual
animals, rather than as metaphors for people easily led, which is
unusual if not unique at the time, but a natural thing for
someone who
was in the wool business. The word "cheveril" (glove leather,
which
needed to be more supple than any other leather) three times in
his
plays (Mercutio tells Romeo "O, here's a wit of cheveril, that
stretches from an inch narrow to an ell broad;" the Old Lady
remarks on
Anne Boleyn's "cheveril conscience" in Henry VIII; and Feste in
Twelfth
Night says "A sentence is but a cheveril glove to a good wit: how
quickly the wrong side may be turned outward") which is three
more
times than I've ever found it in other other author's words,
almost as
if the au!
thor's father was John Shakespeare the glove maker.
> I think there is strong evidence that the plays arose from the
circle
surrounding Lucy Countess of Bedford, including the likes of
John
Donne, Ben Jonson, Edmund Spenser, Samuel Danyel.
I don't even want to know what you'd consider "weak evidence."
> William Shakepeare the playwright is a successful bit of
propaganda
that paved the way for other enormous lies that the public buys.
Who would have been part of this disinformation conspiracy, and
why?
Besides Ben Jonson, of course, and a bunch of London publishers,
and
the theater companies in which Shakespeare was a partner, and the
university-educated writers who bitched about the uneducated
upstart,
and everyone else until the 19th century.
> A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs
it
against the physical reality of the amount of time required to
produce
all that scribbling in light of the work a player like Willi
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Zut alors... A good reminder one should always cite one's sources, just in case they are really silly On 09/18/2018 03:04 AM, Rainer wrote: On 17.09.2018 23:23, Ido Shdaimah wrote: I hereby propose the following theory: Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina is a fiction; much like Santa Claus, if you will. From Joseph Zuth: "Handbuch der Laute und Gitarre", entry on page 36 Bergier, Ungay, 16. Jhdt. (?), In einem alten alten Lautenbuch der Berliner Statsbibl. Arthur Ness mentioned this ridiculous entry here on the list ages ago. Zuth is citing Eitner here. Rainer PS The error was noticed in "Nachträge und VErbesserungen zu Eitners Quelleblexikon" in 1912, already. Apparently, Zuth did not know this. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
The Dutch don't have an aristocracy, and if they have, the Royals are definitively not part of it. David On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 at 15:43, Roman Turovsky <[1]r.turov...@gmail.com> wrote: The computer analysis of Shakespearian vocabulary that pinned it on a single individual from Warwickshire was featured prominently on the great PBS documentary "The Story Of English". RT PS I had a classmate in college who was a Dutch crown prince. He was mainly a weeder. There goes the myth of aristocratic culturedness Sent from my iPad On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:50 AM, Ron Andrico <[2]praelu...@hotmail.com> wrote: No time to present more information because I'm busy scribbling, but here are some links to words by others who, like me, have actually been involved in theater. [1][3]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6985917.stm [2][4]https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/may/01/shakespeare-had- help-t homas-middleton [3][5]https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/theater/l-shakespeare-by-co mmitte e-721050.html __ From: [6]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu <[7]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu> on behalf of howard posner <[8]howardpos...@ca.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:43 AM To: Lute net Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language Ron Andrico <[9]praelu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare, it's just plain silly to think he actually wrote the canon commonly attributed to his name. He was a player, a station lower than that of a professional musician. He was a landowner, a station rather higher than a professional musician. There are all sorts of indications in the Shakespeare plays that the author had working-class/agrarian/merchant background. When Hamlet tells Horatio, "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will," he uses terms that gardeners (or hedge-workers, anyway) were still using in the 20th century, and for all I know, the 21st. His characters will talk of sheep as actual animals, rather than as metaphors for people easily led, which is unusual if not unique at the time, but a natural thing for someone who was in the wool business. The word "cheveril" (glove leather, which needed to be more supple than any other leather) three times in his plays (Mercutio tells Romeo "O, here's a wit of cheveril, that stretches from an inch narrow to an ell broad;" the Old Lady remarks on Anne Boleyn's "cheveril conscience" in Henry VIII; and Feste in Twelfth Night says "A sentence is but a cheveril glove to a good wit: how quickly the wrong side may be turned outward") which is three more times than I've ever found it in other other author's words, almost as if the au! thor's father was John Shakespeare the glove maker. > I think there is strong evidence that the plays arose from the circle surrounding Lucy Countess of Bedford, including the likes of John Donne, Ben Jonson, Edmund Spenser, Samuel Danyel. I don't even want to know what you'd consider "weak evidence." > William Shakepeare the playwright is a successful bit of propaganda that paved the way for other enormous lies that the public buys. Who would have been part of this disinformation conspiracy, and why? Besides Ben Jonson, of course, and a bunch of London publishers, and the theater companies in which Shakespeare was a partner, and the university-educated writers who bitched about the uneducated upstart, and everyone else until the 19th century. > A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it against the physical reality of the amount of time required to produce all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. The Shakespeare canon is between 36 and 42 plays, depending on one's attitude about authenticity. Surely, Ron, as someone who has churned out a large volume of deathless, insightful prose as a sidelight to your busy life as a musician, you're not seriously suggesting that a gifted writer could not produce those plays over the 25 years we know Shakespeare was active. That's about a play and half per year, and we know that a number of plays were collaborations. If you w
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
The computer analysis of Shakespearian vocabulary that pinned it on a single individual from Warwickshire was featured prominently on the great PBS documentary “The Story Of English”. RT PS I had a classmate in college who was a Dutch crown prince. He was mainly a weeder. There goes the myth of aristocratic culturedness Sent from my iPad On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:50 AM, Ron Andrico wrote: No time to present more information because I'm busy scribbling, but here are some links to words by others who, like me, have actually been involved in theater. [1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6985917.stm [2]https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/may/01/shakespeare-had-help-t homas-middleton [3]https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/theater/l-shakespeare-by-committe e-721050.html __ From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu on behalf of howard posner Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:43 AM To: Lute net Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language Ron Andrico wrote: > > As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare, it's just plain silly to think he actually wrote the canon commonly attributed to his name. He was a player, a station lower than that of a professional musician. He was a landowner, a station rather higher than a professional musician. There are all sorts of indications in the Shakespeare plays that the author had working-class/agrarian/merchant background. When Hamlet tells Horatio, "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will," he uses terms that gardeners (or hedge-workers, anyway) were still using in the 20th century, and for all I know, the 21st. His characters will talk of sheep as actual animals, rather than as metaphors for people easily led, which is unusual if not unique at the time, but a natural thing for someone who was in the wool business. The word "cheveril" (glove leather, which needed to be more supple than any other leather) three times in his plays (Mercutio tells Romeo "O, here's a wit of cheveril, that stretches from an inch narrow to an ell broad;" the Old Lady remarks on Anne Boleyn's "cheveril conscience" in Henry VIII; and Feste in Twelfth Night says "A sentence is but a cheveril glove to a good wit: how quickly the wrong side may be turned outward") which is three more times than I've ever found it in other other author's words, almost as if the au! thor's father was John Shakespeare the glove maker. > I think there is strong evidence that the plays arose from the circle surrounding Lucy Countess of Bedford, including the likes of John Donne, Ben Jonson, Edmund Spenser, Samuel Danyel. I don't even want to know what you'd consider "weak evidence." > William Shakepeare the playwright is a successful bit of propaganda that paved the way for other enormous lies that the public buys. Who would have been part of this disinformation conspiracy, and why? Besides Ben Jonson, of course, and a bunch of London publishers, and the theater companies in which Shakespeare was a partner, and the university-educated writers who bitched about the uneducated upstart, and everyone else until the 19th century. > A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it against the physical reality of the amount of time required to produce all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. The Shakespeare canon is between 36 and 42 plays, depending on one's attitude about authenticity. Surely, Ron, as someone who has churned out a large volume of deathless, insightful prose as a sidelight to your busy life as a musician, you're not seriously suggesting that a gifted writer could not produce those plays over the 25 years we know Shakespeare was active. That's about a play and half per year, and we know that a number of plays were collaborations. If you want to tell me that Telemann had to be identical triplets, I'm with you, but "Shakespeare couldn't have found the time" won't hold water. To get on or off this list see list information at [4]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html References 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6985917.stm 2. https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/may/01/shakespeare-had-help-thomas-middleton 3. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/theater/l-shakespeare-by-committee-721050.html 4. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
On 17.09.2018 23:23, Ido Shdaimah wrote: I hereby propose the following theory: Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina is a fiction; much like Santa Claus, if you will. From Joseph Zuth: "Handbuch der Laute und Gitarre", entry on page 36 Bergier, Ungay, 16. Jhdt. (?), In einem alten alten Lautenbuch der Berliner Statsbibl. Arthur Ness mentioned this ridiculous entry here on the list ages ago. Zuth is citing Eitner here. Rainer PS The error was noticed in "Nachträge und VErbesserungen zu Eitners Quelleblexikon" in 1912, already. Apparently, Zuth did not know this. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Small letters: I was referring to small print warnings on most credit card, mortgage, etc, application forms. My most recent encounter was on a bottle of French wine, in gold letters on a burgundy colored sticker that literally required a microscope to read. It said: indication géographique protégée. That tiny, tiny protection is a yet very efficient shield against major litigation, unless of course the producer/marketer are cheating... Only the lawyers need to be able to read that, and they usually can afford a microscope even when the drinker can't. This label now replaces the French "appellation d'origine controllée" but applies to all European products in that category: Chianti, Gewurtzstraminer, Champagne, Gouda, etc. (Marmite is in a different category, being Dutch but only consumed in England for obvious reasons to the rest of the planet). I am sure it will come as no surprise for you to hear that none of the French words in use in English law are still used in modern France: mortgage is hypotheque, and the modern French word closest to escrow is "escroc" which literally means a "crook". Ironic, no? If only Richard Nixon had spoken French he might still be president: "Je ne suis pas un escroc" would have sounded kind of weird in the US, but not damning weird, just silly. Kind of like Trump wanting to have a parade, just because the French have one and it is so cool... My advice to Trump: call it a défilé and it will proudly pass Congress. Parade is of course also a French word, but Americans know what it means. This is to be avoided at all costs! Particularly the cost of a parade... the cost of a défilé by comparison will sound very affordable and quite haute-couture and classy. It might not save him from impeachment (from the French empêchement, usually something that prevents you from being on time at your rendez-vous, and occasionally means the guillotine prevented you for being on time), but it would be no reason for a coup d'etat. It is not just what you say, but also how you say it that matters. And now, back to the Shakespeare thread... On 09/17/2018 09:05 PM, howard posner wrote: On Sep 17, 2018, at 1:37 AM, Alain Veylit [1] wrote: look for something called "law French", a language understood only by English la wyers and very much alive until at least the 18th century. It makes modern legal eeze sound simple, Law English is still largely French: words like estoppel, mortgage, plaintiff, d efendant, bailiff, warrant, guaranty, voir dire, parol (and parole), tort, felo ny, estate, escrow, privilege, joinder, fraud, demurrer, amendment, privity, enj oin, damages, judgment, equitable, discharge, precedent, levy, attach, lien, par don, patent, plea, easement, evidence, ordinance, repeal, reverse, counsel and a ttorney, to name a few. although still difficult to read because in very small letters. ?? To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:al...@musickshandmade.com 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
I do so love the pointless bickering. It buoys our spirits and makes better lutenists of us all! Pray do carry on! Bob Purrenhage On 9/17/2018 10:43 PM, howard posner wrote: Ron Andrico [1] wrote: As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare, it's just plain silly to thi nk he actually wrote the canon commonly attributed to his name. He was a player , a station lower than that of a professional musician. He was a landowner, a station rather higher than a professional musician. There are all sorts of indications in the Shakespeare plays that the author had working-class/agrarian/merchant background. When Hamlet tells Horatio, "There's a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew t hem how we will," he uses terms that gardeners (or hedge-workers, anyway) were s till using in the 20th century, and for all I know, the 21st. His characters wi ll talk of sheep as actual animals, rather than as metaphors for people easily l ed, which is unusual if not unique at the time, but a natural thing for someone who was in the wool business. The word "cheveril" (glove leather, which needed to be more supple than any other leather) three times in his plays (Mercutio tel ls Romeo "O, here's a wit of cheveril, that stretches from an inch narrow to an ell broad;" the Old Lady remarks on Anne Boleyn's "cheveril conscience" in Henry VIII; and Feste in Twelfth Night says "A sentence is â¨but a cheveril glove to a good wit: how quickly the â¨wrong side may be turned outward") which is three mo re times than I've ever found it in other other author's words, almost as if the au! thor's father was John Shakespeare the glove maker. I think there is strong evidence that the plays arose from the circle surroundin g Lucy Countess of Bedford, including the likes of John Donne, Ben Jonson, Edmu nd Spenser, Samuel Danyel. I don't even want to know what you'd consider "weak evidence." William Shakepeare the playwright is a successful bit of propaganda that paved t he way for other enormous lies that the public buys. Who would have been part of this disinformation conspiracy, and why? Besides Be n Jonson, of course, and a bunch of London publishers, and the theater companies in which Shakespeare was a partner, and the university-educated writers who bit ched about the uneducated upstart, and everyone else until the 19th century. A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it against the ph ysical reality of the amount of time required to produce all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. The Shakespeare canon is between 36 and 42 plays, depending on one's attitude ab out authenticity. Surely, Ron, as someone who has churned out a large volume of deathless, insightful prose as a sidelight to your busy life as a musician, you 're not seriously suggesting that a gifted writer could not produce those plays over the 25 years we know Shakespeare was active. That's about a play and half per year, and we know that a number of plays were collaborations. If you want to tell me that Telemann had to be identical triplets, I'm with you, but "Shakespeare couldn't have found the time" won't hold water. To get on or off this list see list information at [2]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:praelu...@hotmail.com 2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
> On Sep 17, 2018, at 1:37 AM, Alain Veylit wrote: > > look for something called "law French", a language understood only by English > lawyers and very much alive until at least the 18th century. It makes modern > legaleeze sound simple, Law English is still largely French: words like estoppel, mortgage, plaintiff, defendant, bailiff, warrant, guaranty, voir dire, parol (and parole), tort, felony, estate, escrow, privilege, joinder, fraud, demurrer, amendment, privity, enjoin, damages, judgment, equitable, discharge, precedent, levy, attach, lien, pardon, patent, plea, easement, evidence, ordinance, repeal, reverse, counsel and attorney, to name a few. > although still difficult to read because in very small letters. ?? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Ron Andrico wrote: > > As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare, it's just plain silly to > think he actually wrote the canon commonly attributed to his name. He was a > player, a station lower than that of a professional musician. He was a landowner, a station rather higher than a professional musician. There are all sorts of indications in the Shakespeare plays that the author had working-class/agrarian/merchant background. When Hamlet tells Horatio, "There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will,” he uses terms that gardeners (or hedge-workers, anyway) were still using in the 20th century, and for all I know, the 21st. His characters will talk of sheep as actual animals, rather than as metaphors for people easily led, which is unusual if not unique at the time, but a natural thing for someone who was in the wool business. The word “cheveril” (glove leather, which needed to be more supple than any other leather) three times in his plays (Mercutio tells Romeo "O, here's a wit of cheveril, that stretches from an inch narrow to an ell broad;” the Old Lady remarks on Anne Boleyn’s “cheveril conscience” in Henry VIII; and Feste in Twelfth Night says "A sentence is but a cheveril glove to a good wit: how quickly the wrong side may be turned outward”) which is three more times than I’ve ever found it in other other author’s words, almost as if the au! thor’s father was John Shakespeare the glove maker. > I think there is strong evidence that the plays arose from the circle > surrounding Lucy Countess of Bedford, including the likes of John Donne, Ben > Jonson, Edmund Spenser, Samuel Danyel. I don’t even want to know what you’d consider “weak evidence." > William Shakepeare the playwright is a successful bit of propaganda that > paved the way for other enormous lies that the public buys. Who would have been part of this disinformation conspiracy, and why? Besides Ben Jonson, of course, and a bunch of London publishers, and the theater companies in which Shakespeare was a partner, and the university-educated writers who bitched about the uneducated upstart, and everyone else until the 19th century. > A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it against the > physical reality of the amount of time required to produce all that > scribbling in light of the work a player like William Shakespeare was > required to do in order to survive. The Shakespeare canon is between 36 and 42 plays, depending on one’s attitude about authenticity. Surely, Ron, as someone who has churned out a large volume of deathless, insightful prose as a sidelight to your busy life as a musician, you’re not seriously suggesting that a gifted writer could not produce those plays over the 25 years we know Shakespeare was active. That’s about a play and half per year, and we know that a number of plays were collaborations. If you want to tell me that Telemann had to be identical triplets, I’m with you, but “Shakespeare couldn’t have found the time” won’t hold water. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Just one note on historical research: no amount of affection for the
working class or justified criticism of intelligence agencies can make
up for a lack of evidence for a historical claim.
Tom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 5:55 AM Ron Andrico <[1]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Unsuccessful attempt at irony. Apples and oranges when it comes
to
Palestrina, who in fact recycled a significant amount of his
material
as he was fulfilling his job composing for his patrons.
For those of you who appear to relish arguing on this forum,
please
understand that the entire concept behind the term "conspiracy
theory"
was developed by the US intelligence services to counter
reasonable
questions regarding propaganda campaigns.
Here is an honest question for you to ponder: Why do so many lute
hobbyists engage in online dogmatism?
__
From: [2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu <[3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
on behalf
of Ido Shdaimah <[4]ishdai...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 9:23 PM
To: lutelist Net
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
I hereby propose the following theory: Giovanni Pierluigi da
Palestrina
is a fiction; much like Santa Claus, if you will. You see, I,
among
a
host of thinking people deem it impossible for one man from
Rome to
compose such a large oeuvre: 105 masses, 68 offertories, at
least
140
madrigals, more than 300 motets, 75 hymns, 35 magnificats, 11
litanies,
and 4-5 sets of lamentations.
Instead, I propose that 'his' works were actually composed by
a team
of
collaborators, including, but not limited to Gesualdo,
Arcadelt,
Gabrieli, des Perez, J. S. Bach, Robert Burns, and Dr. Suess.
All
under
the auspices of pope Julius III, his alleged employer. The
elites
wanted and want you to think Palestrina composed those works,
because
they have an insatiable urge to fabricate amd distribute lies
to the
masses for no apparent gain or reason.
Wake up, Sheeple!
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 23:52 Ron Andrico
<[1][5]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Truth to tell, I have absolutely no agenda to push here.
I
have
no
preconceived ideas about Shakespeare and nothing to
promote or
defend.
In fact, as a staunch supporter of the working class who
believes
the
royals and the power elite to be nothing more than a
useless
irritant
and blight upon the earth, I should want to believe that
William
Shakespeare rose from humble roots and proved to be a
brilliant
writer.Like John Dowland, who actually rose from
presumably
humble
roots to become a brilliant composer.It's just that
I, like
a
host of
other thinking persons, find it difficult to swallow this
particular
myth.Sort of like Santa Claus.But don't take my
word for
it.
"How curious and interesting is the parallel--as far as
poverty
of
biographical details is concerned--between Satan and
Shakespeare.
...They are the best-known unknown persons that have ever
drawn
breath
upon the planet." - Mark Twain, "Is Shakespeare Dead?"
__
From: [2][6]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
<[3][7]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
on behalf
of T.J. Sellari <[4][8]tsell...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 5:36 PM
To: [5][9]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
I hope we might include Shakespeare scholars in the
group of
"thinking"
people who have considered this question; they indeed
have
made the
relevant scholarship a focus of their careers. As I'm
sure
many on
this
list know already, no scholar proposes that
Shakespeare
wrote
every
word of the plays attributed to him. On many plays, he
had
collaborators, and scholars continue to dedicate
considerabl
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
I hereby propose the following theory: Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
is a fiction; much like Santa Claus, if you will. You see, I, among a
host of thinking people deem it impossible for one man from Rome to
compose such a large oeuvre: 105 masses, 68 offertories, at least 140
madrigals, more than 300 motets, 75 hymns, 35 magnificats, 11 litanies,
and 4-5 sets of lamentations.
Instead, I propose that 'his' works were actually composed by a team of
collaborators, including, but not limited to Gesualdo, Arcadelt,
Gabrieli, des Perez, J. S. Bach, Robert Burns, and Dr. Suess. All under
the auspices of pope Julius III, his alleged employer. The elites
wanted and want you to think Palestrina composed those works, because
they have an insatiable urge to fabricate amd distribute lies to the
masses for no apparent gain or reason.
Wake up, Sheeple!
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018, 23:52 Ron Andrico <[1]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Truth to tell, I have absolutely no agenda to push here. I have
no
preconceived ideas about Shakespeare and nothing to promote or
defend.
In fact, as a staunch supporter of the working class who believes
the
royals and the power elite to be nothing more than a useless
irritant
and blight upon the earth, I should want to believe that William
Shakespeare rose from humble roots and proved to be a brilliant
writer. Like John Dowland, who actually rose from presumably
humble
roots to become a brilliant composer. It's just that I, like a
host of
other thinking persons, find it difficult to swallow this
particular
myth. Sort of like Santa Claus. But don't take my word for
it.
"How curious and interesting is the parallel--as far as poverty
of
biographical details is concerned--between Satan and Shakespeare.
...They are the best-known unknown persons that have ever drawn
breath
upon the planet." - Mark Twain, "Is Shakespeare Dead?"
__
From: [2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu <[3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
on behalf
of T.J. Sellari <[4]tsell...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 5:36 PM
To: [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
I hope we might include Shakespeare scholars in the group of
"thinking"
people who have considered this question; they indeed have
made the
relevant scholarship a focus of their careers. As I'm sure
many on
this
list know already, no scholar proposes that Shakespeare wrote
every
word of the plays attributed to him. On many plays, he had
collaborators, and scholars continue to dedicate considerable
effort
to
trying to figure out the scope and nature of his
collaborations.
(See,
for example, Sir Brian Vickers' _Shakespeare, Co-Author: A
Historical
Study of Five Collaborative Plays_.) To argue that the case
for
Shakespeare as the sole author of all of his works is yet to
be
proven
misses the point entirely; nobody is trying to prove it,
because
nobody
believes it. But that is not to accept the far-fetched idea
that a
group of collaborators wrote all the works. There's only
"thinking"
behind this idea, and absolutely no evidence. It is literally
a
historical conspiracy theory. Shapiro's book explains why.
Perhaps this issue has nothing to do with lute music, but I
assume
that
members of this list are interested in historical accuracy in
any
case.
The "informed belief" that Shakespeare's works were written by
a
committee is actually very poorly informed. Since I have
learned a
great deal from this list, I thought I should contribute a
small bit
of
more reliable information when I got the chance.
Tom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:41 AM Ron Andrico
<[1][6]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I'm familiar with Shapiro's work.The authorship
question
indeed.It
is a question and not a given.Some like to say the
man from
Stratford
was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works
of
Shakespeare.That is a theory that has yet to be
proven, no
matter
what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like
to
propose.
A thinking person considers
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Well, you advanced a particular (erroneous) argument, which I
countered. I certainly won't take your word--or Mark Twain's, for that
matter--for it, because I have read quite a bit of the relevant
research on such questions. You keep claiming membership to a group of
"thinking" people--but in this case, what exactly are you thinking?
It's not a "myth" that people who have not grown up in privileged
circumstances nevertheless manage to become accomplished artists,
writers, scientists, engineers, etc. History provides innumerable
examples of such people, Samuel Clemens among them (though he had no
particular expertise in Shakespeare scholarship).
If I understand your message correctly, your thinking is based on a
quite simplistic elitism. I must admit I'd be interested to know why
you can accept Dowland's accomplishment, but not Shakespeare's.
Tom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:52 AM Ron Andrico <[1]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Truth to tell, I have absolutely no agenda to push here. I have
no
preconceived ideas about Shakespeare and nothing to promote or
defend.
In fact, as a staunch supporter of the working class who believes
the
royals and the power elite to be nothing more than a useless
irritant
and blight upon the earth, I should want to believe that William
Shakespeare rose from humble roots and proved to be a brilliant
writer. Like John Dowland, who actually rose from presumably
humble
roots to become a brilliant composer. It's just that I, like a
host of
other thinking persons, find it difficult to swallow this
particular
myth. Sort of like Santa Claus. But don't take my word for
it.
"How curious and interesting is the parallel--as far as poverty
of
biographical details is concerned--between Satan and Shakespeare.
...They are the best-known unknown persons that have ever drawn
breath
upon the planet." - Mark Twain, "Is Shakespeare Dead?"
__
From: [2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu <[3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
on behalf
of T.J. Sellari <[4]tsell...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 5:36 PM
To: [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
I hope we might include Shakespeare scholars in the group of
"thinking"
people who have considered this question; they indeed have
made the
relevant scholarship a focus of their careers. As I'm sure
many on
this
list know already, no scholar proposes that Shakespeare wrote
every
word of the plays attributed to him. On many plays, he had
collaborators, and scholars continue to dedicate considerable
effort
to
trying to figure out the scope and nature of his
collaborations.
(See,
for example, Sir Brian Vickers' _Shakespeare, Co-Author: A
Historical
Study of Five Collaborative Plays_.) To argue that the case
for
Shakespeare as the sole author of all of his works is yet to
be
proven
misses the point entirely; nobody is trying to prove it,
because
nobody
believes it. But that is not to accept the far-fetched idea
that a
group of collaborators wrote all the works. There's only
"thinking"
behind this idea, and absolutely no evidence. It is literally
a
historical conspiracy theory. Shapiro's book explains why.
Perhaps this issue has nothing to do with lute music, but I
assume
that
members of this list are interested in historical accuracy in
any
case.
The "informed belief" that Shakespeare's works were written by
a
committee is actually very poorly informed. Since I have
learned a
great deal from this list, I thought I should contribute a
small bit
of
more reliable information when I got the chance.
Tom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:41 AM Ron Andrico
<[1][6]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I'm familiar with Shapiro's work.The authorship
question
indeed.It
is a question and not a given.Some like to say the
man from
Stratford
was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works
of
Shakespeare.That is a theory that has yet to be
proven, no
matter
what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like
to
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
One correction. [Note to self: Don't quote from memory!] The respective quote about Le Sage reads as follows: "As an example of this inherited art in a bourgeois Silesian family, let us cite the Kropfganss family. The eldest, Johann Kasper, was a student of Philipp Franz Le Sage de Richee, one of the French emigrants mentioned above." Emil Vogl, JOHANN ANTON LOSY: LUTENIST OF PRAGUE, Journal of the Lute Society of America, Vol. XIII, pp. 58-86 (1980), 2008 Sorry for confusion, Mathias -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Well, it does have to do a bit with lute music. There was a theory that the music published by Le Sage de Riche (Breslau, 1695) was not composed by him because the author of that theory couldn't find further evidence for the existence of Le Sage. I objected that according to a remark in Emil Vogl's article on the angélique (Die Angelika und ihre Musik, 1974), one of Falkenhagen's sons studied the lute with Le Sage in Breslau. But the conspiracy author dismissed my objection, saying that Vogl's remark was "not airtight" (nicht belastbar). The same pattern of thinking was applied to another lute composer, Jacques Bittner (Jakob Büttner), by the same conspiracy author. No evidence for Bittner's existence, so no Bittner at all. The true composer, he said, was the dedicatee of Bittner's lute book, Pierre de Treyenfels who purportedly hadn't wished to publish his compositions under his own name, as he belonged to the nobility. Mathias ___ Gesendet mit der [1]Telekom Mail App --- Original-Nachricht --- Von: T.J. Sellari Betreff: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language Datum: 17.09.2018, 19:36 Uhr An: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu I hope we might include Shakespeare scholars in the group of "thinking" people who have considered this question; they indeed have made the relevant scholarship a focus of their careers. As I'm sure many on this list know already, no scholar proposes that Shakespeare wrote every word of the plays attributed to him. On many plays, he had collaborators, and scholars continue to dedicate considerable effort to trying to figure out the scope and nature of his collaborations. (See, for example, Sir Brian Vickers' _Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays_.) To argue that the case for Shakespeare as the sole author of all of his works is yet to be proven misses the point entirely; nobody is trying to prove it, because nobody believes it. But that is not to accept the far-fetched idea that a group of collaborators wrote all the works. There's only "thinking" behind this idea, and absolutely no evidence. It is literally a historical conspiracy theory. Shapiro's book explains why. Perhaps this issue has nothing to do with lute music, but I assume that members of this list are interested in historical accuracy in any case. The "informed belief" that Shakespeare's works were written by a committee is actually very poorly informed. Since I have learned a great deal from this list, I thought I should contribute a small bit of more reliable information when I got the chance. Tom On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:41 AM Ron Andrico <[1][2]praelu...@hotmail.com> wrote: I'm familiar with Shapiro's work. The authorship question indeed. It is a question and not a given. Some like to say the man from Stratford was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works of Shakespeare. That is a theory that has yet to be proven, no matter what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like to propose. A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it against the physical reality of the amount of time required to produce all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. Then a thinking person considers how persons of noble rank would refrain from publishing their work (Sidney's work was published posthumously). And a thinking person observes how authors and musicians would participate in a salon atmosphere under the patronage of someone like Lucy Countess of Bedford. I have had the opportunity to delve into the subject, and the evidence points to work produced by more than one author that retains a consistent voice due to a collaborative effort with a common goal. Like the collaborative effort that produced the King James Bible. What does this have to do with lute music anyway? __ From: [2][3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu <[3][4]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu> on behalf of T.J. Sellari <[4][5]tsell...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
On 17.09.2018 17:19, T.J. Sellari wrote:
Re: Shakespeare authorship question
There are many theories that purport to cast doubt on Shakespeare's
authorship of the plays attributed to him, but scholars of English
Renaisssance literature consider them largely nonsense. I suggest you
take a look at _Contested Will_ by James Shapiro. A review of the book
can be found here:
This is an excellent book, indeed.
I am not "familiar" with it - I have read it twice :)
In fact, it has inspired my little puzzle. Howard almost solved it, but I
wonder if he used google :)
The letter in question is indeed a letter to his wife "written" by Shakespeare.
Of course, apart form the questionable pages from "Sir Thomas More" no longer
text attributable to Shakespeare has survived.
The "letter" was forged by the "famous" William Henry Ireland who wrote Vortigern and a
manuscript version ("by" Shakespeare) of King Lear.
The orthography is ridiculous and a few scholars immediately had serious doubts.
It is easy today to laugh but in those days (end of 18th century) forensic
palaeography was not even in its infancy.
Vortigern was even perform at the Drury Lane Theatre on 2 April 1796 and I
understand it is sometimes performed today as a joke.
Rainer
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Well, it does have to do a bit with lute music. There was a theory that the music published by Le Sage de Riche (Breslau, 1695) was not composed by him because the author of that theory couldn't find further evidence for the existence of Le Sage. I objected that according to a remark in Emil Vogl's article on the angélique (Die Angelika und ihre Musik, 1974), one of Falkenhagen's sons studied the lute with Le Sage in Breslau. But the conspiracy author dismissed my objection, saying that Vogl's remark was "not authoritative" (nicht belastbar). The same pattern of thinking was applied to another lute composer, Jacques Bittner (Jakob Büttner), by the same conspiracy author. No evidence for Bittner's existence, so no Bittner at all. The true composer, he said, was the dedicatee of Bittner's lute book, Pierre de Treyenfels who purportedly hadn't wished to publish his compositions under his own name, as he belonged to the nobility. Mathias ___ Gesendet mit der [1]Telekom Mail App --- Original-Nachricht --- Von: T.J. Sellari Betreff: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language Datum: 17.09.2018, 19:36 Uhr An: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu I hope we might include Shakespeare scholars in the group of "thinking" people who have considered this question; they indeed have made the relevant scholarship a focus of their careers. As I'm sure many on this list know already, no scholar proposes that Shakespeare wrote every word of the plays attributed to him. On many plays, he had collaborators, and scholars continue to dedicate considerable effort to trying to figure out the scope and nature of his collaborations. (See, for example, Sir Brian Vickers' _Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays_.) To argue that the case for Shakespeare as the sole author of all of his works is yet to be proven misses the point entirely; nobody is trying to prove it, because nobody believes it. But that is not to accept the far-fetched idea that a group of collaborators wrote all the works. There's only "thinking" behind this idea, and absolutely no evidence. It is literally a historical conspiracy theory. Shapiro's book explains why. Perhaps this issue has nothing to do with lute music, but I assume that members of this list are interested in historical accuracy in any case. The "informed belief" that Shakespeare's works were written by a committee is actually very poorly informed. Since I have learned a great deal from this list, I thought I should contribute a small bit of more reliable information when I got the chance. Tom On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:41 AM Ron Andrico <[1][2]praelu...@hotmail.com> wrote: I'm familiar with Shapiro's work. The authorship question indeed. It is a question and not a given. Some like to say the man from Stratford was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works of Shakespeare. That is a theory that has yet to be proven, no matter what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like to propose. A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it against the physical reality of the amount of time required to produce all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. Then a thinking person considers how persons of noble rank would refrain from publishing their work (Sidney's work was published posthumously). And a thinking person observes how authors and musicians would participate in a salon atmosphere under the patronage of someone like Lucy Countess of Bedford. I have had the opportunity to delve into the subject, and the evidence points to work produced by more than one author that retains a consistent voice due to a collaborative effort with a common goal. Like the collaborative effort that produced the King James Bible. What does this have to do with lute music anyway? __ From: [2][3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu <[3][4]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu> on behalf of T.J. Sellari <[4][5]tsell...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:19 PM To: [5][6]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language Re: Shakespeare authorship question There are many theories that purport to cast doubt on Shakespeare's authorship of the plays attributed to him, but scholars of English Renaisssance literature consider them largely nonsense. I suggest you take a look at _Contested Will_ by James Shapiro. A review of the book can be found here: [1][6][7]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-w h
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
I hope we might include Shakespeare scholars in the group of "thinking"
people who have considered this question; they indeed have made the
relevant scholarship a focus of their careers. As I'm sure many on this
list know already, no scholar proposes that Shakespeare wrote every
word of the plays attributed to him. On many plays, he had
collaborators, and scholars continue to dedicate considerable effort to
trying to figure out the scope and nature of his collaborations. (See,
for example, Sir Brian Vickers' _Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical
Study of Five Collaborative Plays_.) To argue that the case for
Shakespeare as the sole author of all of his works is yet to be proven
misses the point entirely; nobody is trying to prove it, because nobody
believes it. But that is not to accept the far-fetched idea that a
group of collaborators wrote all the works. There's only "thinking"
behind this idea, and absolutely no evidence. It is literally a
historical conspiracy theory. Shapiro's book explains why.
Perhaps this issue has nothing to do with lute music, but I assume that
members of this list are interested in historical accuracy in any case.
The "informed belief" that Shakespeare's works were written by a
committee is actually very poorly informed. Since I have learned a
great deal from this list, I thought I should contribute a small bit of
more reliable information when I got the chance.
Tom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:41 AM Ron Andrico <[1]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I'm familiar with Shapiro's work. The authorship question
indeed. It
is a question and not a given. Some like to say the man from
Stratford
was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works of
Shakespeare. That is a theory that has yet to be proven, no
matter
what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like to
propose.
A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it
against the physical reality of the amount of time required to
produce
all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William
Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive.Then a
thinking
person considers how persons of noble rank would refrain from
publishing their work (Sidney's work was published posthumously).
And
a thinking person observes how authors and musicians would
participate
in a salon atmosphere under the patronage of someone like Lucy
Countess
of Bedford.
I have had the opportunity to delve into the subject, and the
evidence
points to work produced by more than one author that retains a
consistent voice due to a collaborative effort with a common
goal.
Like the collaborative effort that produced the King James Bible.
What does this have to do with lute music anyway?
__
From: [2]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu <[3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
on behalf
of T.J. Sellari <[4]tsell...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:19 PM
To: [5]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Re: Shakespeare authorship question
There are many theories that purport to cast doubt on
Shakespeare's
authorship of the plays attributed to him, but scholars of
English
Renaisssance literature consider them largely nonsense. I
suggest
you
take a look at _Contested Will_ by James Shapiro. A review of
the
book
can be found here:
[1][6]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-w
ho-wro
te-shakespeare
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ron Andrico
<[2][7]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Absolument, Alain.Many forget that the English court
was
actually
French until the upstart Henry Tudor slaughtered his way
to the
throne.Even then, French was spoken at court through
much of
the 16th
century.
As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare,
it's just
plain
silly to think he actually wrote the canon commonly
attributed
to
his
name.He was a player, a station lower than that of a
professional
musician.We can support various theories of who wrote
the
works
commonly attributed to Shakespeare, but my informed
belief is
that they
were written by committee, just like the King James Bible
was a
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
The computer analysis of Shakespeare’s vocabulary conducted some 20 years ago
has determined that it matched the Warwickshire dialect. So all the conspiracy
theories apropos have been blown out the water.
RT
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 17, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Ron Andrico wrote:
I'm familiar with Shapiro's work. The authorship question indeed. It
is a question and not a given. Some like to say the man from Stratford
was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works of
Shakespeare. That is a theory that has yet to be proven, no matter
what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like to propose.
A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it
against the physical reality of the amount of time required to produce
all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William
Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. Then a thinking
person considers how persons of noble rank would refrain from
publishing their work (Sidney's work was published posthumously). And
a thinking person observes how authors and musicians would participate
in a salon atmosphere under the patronage of someone like Lucy Countess
of Bedford.
I have had the opportunity to delve into the subject, and the evidence
points to work produced by more than one author that retains a
consistent voice due to a collaborative effort with a common goal.
Like the collaborative effort that produced the King James Bible.
What does this have to do with lute music anyway?
__
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu on behalf
of T.J. Sellari
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:19 PM
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Re: Shakespeare authorship question
There are many theories that purport to cast doubt on Shakespeare's
authorship of the plays attributed to him, but scholars of English
Renaisssance literature consider them largely nonsense. I suggest
you
take a look at _Contested Will_ by James Shapiro. A review of the
book
can be found here:
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wro
te-shakespeare
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ron Andrico
<[2]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Absolument, Alain. Many forget that the English court was
actually
French until the upstart Henry Tudor slaughtered his way to the
throne. Even then, French was spoken at court through much of
the 16th
century.
As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare, it's just
plain
silly to think he actually wrote the canon commonly attributed
to
his
name. He was a player, a station lower than that of a
professional
musician. We can support various theories of who wrote the
works
commonly attributed to Shakespeare, but my informed belief is
that they
were written by committee, just like the King James Bible was a
few
years hence.
I think there is strong evidence that the plays arose from the
circle
surrounding Lucy Countess of Bedford, including the likes of
John
Donne, Ben Jonson, Edmund Spenser, Samuel Danyel. There is
also
a
theory that the very literate Countess of Pembroke, Sir Philip
Sidney's
sister, may have dipped her quill in.
William Shakepeare the playwright is a successful bit of
propaganda
that paved the way for other enormous lies that the public
buys.
It's
really very easy for those in a position of power to promote an
idea
with PR and make the public believe it. Like A=415 was
historical
baroque pitch, for instance.
__
From: [3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
<[4]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
on behalf
of Alain Veylit <[5]al...@musickshandmade.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:37 AM
To: howard posner; Lute net
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
If you really want to have a blast at the awful English
language,
look
for something called "law French", a language understood only
by
English
lawyers and very much alive until at least the 18th century. It
makes
modern legaleeze sound simple, although still difficult to read
because
in very small letters. Many poor people sent to the gallows had
no idea
what was said at court...
Joke aside, given the introduction of many French words into
English
(500 words from Montaigne's translator alone) and the still
fair
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
The Olde Shakespeherian Rage doth blow againe. Stray not too farre from
Occam's Barbershop- whenever necessary, he giveth a very close shave
indeed! (And mayhap a cittern, even a lute may be hanging on the wall-
keeping our wayward thread music related...)
On 9/17/2018 9:40 AM, Ron Andrico wrote:
I'm familiar with Shapiro's work. The authorship question indeed. It
is a question and not a given. Some like to say the man from Stratford
was the sole author of the tremendous output of the works of
Shakespeare. That is a theory that has yet to be proven, no matter
what your scholars of English Renaissance literature like to propose.
A thinking person considers that tremendous output and weighs it
against the physical reality of the amount of time required to produce
all that scribbling in light of the work a player like William
Shakespeare was required to do in order to survive. Then a thinking
person considers how persons of noble rank would refrain from
publishing their work (Sidney's work was published posthumously). And
a thinking person observes how authors and musicians would participate
in a salon atmosphere under the patronage of someone like Lucy Countess
of Bedford.
I have had the opportunity to delve into the subject, and the evidence
points to work produced by more than one author that retains a
consistent voice due to a collaborative effort with a common goal.
Like the collaborative effort that produced the King James Bible.
What does this have to do with lute music anyway?
__
From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu on behalf
of T.J. Sellari
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:19 PM
To: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Re: Shakespeare authorship question
There are many theories that purport to cast doubt on Shakespeare's
authorship of the plays attributed to him, but scholars of English
Renaisssance literature consider them largely nonsense. I suggest
you
take a look at _Contested Will_ by James Shapiro. A review of the
book
can be found here:
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wro
te-shakespeare
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ron Andrico
<[2]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Absolument, Alain. Many forget that the English court was
actually
French until the upstart Henry Tudor slaughtered his way to the
throne. Even then, French was spoken at court through much of
the 16th
century.
As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare, it's just
plain
silly to think he actually wrote the canon commonly attributed
to
his
name. He was a player, a station lower than that of a
professional
musician. We can support various theories of who wrote the
works
commonly attributed to Shakespeare, but my informed belief is
that they
were written by committee, just like the King James Bible was a
few
years hence.
I think there is strong evidence that the plays arose from the
circle
surrounding Lucy Countess of Bedford, including the likes of
John
Donne, Ben Jonson, Edmund Spenser, Samuel Danyel. There is
also
a
theory that the very literate Countess of Pembroke, Sir Philip
Sidney's
sister, may have dipped her quill in.
William Shakepeare the playwright is a successful bit of
propaganda
that paved the way for other enormous lies that the public
buys.
It's
really very easy for those in a position of power to promote an
idea
with PR and make the public believe it. Like A=415 was
historical
baroque pitch, for instance.
__
From: [3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu
<[4]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
on behalf
of Alain Veylit <[5]al...@musickshandmade.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:37 AM
To: howard posner; Lute net
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
If you really want to have a blast at the awful English
language,
look
for something called "law French", a language understood only
by
English
lawyers and very much alive until at least the 18th century. It
makes
modern legaleeze sound simple, although still difficult to read
because
in very small letters. Many poor people sent to the gallows had
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Re: Shakespeare authorship question
There are many theories that purport to cast doubt on Shakespeare's
authorship of the plays attributed to him, but scholars of English
Renaisssance literature consider them largely nonsense. I suggest you
take a look at _Contested Will_ by James Shapiro. A review of the book
can be found here:
[1]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/mar/20/contested-will-who-wro
te-shakespeare
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:16 PM Ron Andrico <[2]praelu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Absolument, Alain. Many forget that the English court was
actually
French until the upstart Henry Tudor slaughtered his way to the
throne. Even then, French was spoken at court through much of
the 16th
century.
As for the less-than-eloquent William Shakespeare, it's just
plain
silly to think he actually wrote the canon commonly attributed to
his
name. He was a player, a station lower than that of a
professional
musician. We can support various theories of who wrote the
works
commonly attributed to Shakespeare, but my informed belief is
that they
were written by committee, just like the King James Bible was a
few
years hence.
I think there is strong evidence that the plays arose from the
circle
surrounding Lucy Countess of Bedford, including the likes of
John
Donne, Ben Jonson, Edmund Spenser, Samuel Danyel. There is also
a
theory that the very literate Countess of Pembroke, Sir Philip
Sidney's
sister, may have dipped her quill in.
William Shakepeare the playwright is a successful bit of
propaganda
that paved the way for other enormous lies that the public buys.
It's
really very easy for those in a position of power to promote an
idea
with PR and make the public believe it. Like A=415 was
historical
baroque pitch, for instance.
__
From: [3]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu <[4]lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
on behalf
of Alain Veylit <[5]al...@musickshandmade.com>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:37 AM
To: howard posner; Lute net
Subject: [LUTE] Re: The awful English language
If you really want to have a blast at the awful English language,
look
for something called "law French", a language understood only by
English
lawyers and very much alive until at least the 18th century. It
makes
modern legaleeze sound simple, although still difficult to read
because
in very small letters. Many poor people sent to the gallows had
no idea
what was said at court...
Joke aside, given the introduction of many French words into
English
(500 words from Montaigne's translator alone) and the still
fairly
strong presence of French as a an aristocratic language for the
few and
the famous still in the 16th century, I am wondering if
Shakespearian
English did not sound quite a bit more French than one might
think.
Which could mean that to study Elizabethan English, you might
have to
study Quebecois French, supposedly much closer to 17th century
French
than Paris French... Or also study modern English pronunciation
of
Latin, which to my ears sounds quite painful - specially the
diphtongs...
For example: modern English "Sir", from the French "sieur" (as in
monsieur) might have sounded closer to the original French
"sire"
(lord/majesty : monsieur = mon sire = my lord); the word "court"
might
have sounded closer to the French "cour".
I vaguely remember something about the great diphtong shift in
English
phonetics - that might account for the split from the French word
"Sire"
(same "i" as Apple's "Siri") to the modern "Sir" and "Sire". One
diphtonguized the other not. But the French is ambiguous since we
have
both the word "sieur" (Pronounced pretty close to "sir" and
meaning
"lord" ) and "sire" (pronounced close to "Siri" and meaning
Majesty).
Americans might want to check this video to speak proper modern
English:
[1][6]https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU and learn about diphtongs...
It's quite
scientific, you know...
On 09/16/2018 01:27 PM, howard posner wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Matthew Daillie
<[7]dail...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
>>
>> You might be interes
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
If you really want to have a blast at the awful English language, look for something called "law French", a language understood only by English lawyers and very much alive until at least the 18th century. It makes modern legaleeze sound simple, although still difficult to read because in very small letters. Many poor people sent to the gallows had no idea what was said at court... Joke aside, given the introduction of many French words into English (500 words from Montaigne's translator alone) and the still fairly strong presence of French as a an aristocratic language for the few and the famous still in the 16th century, I am wondering if Shakespearian English did not sound quite a bit more French than one might think. Which could mean that to study Elizabethan English, you might have to study Quebecois French, supposedly much closer to 17th century French than Paris French... Or also study modern English pronunciation of Latin, which to my ears sounds quite painful - specially the diphtongs... For example: modern English "Sir", from the French "sieur" (as in monsieur) might have sounded closer to the original French "sire" (lord/majesty : monsieur = mon sire = my lord); the word "court" might have sounded closer to the French "cour". I vaguely remember something about the great diphtong shift in English phonetics - that might account for the split from the French word "Sire" (same "i" as Apple's "Siri") to the modern "Sir" and "Sire". One diphtonguized the other not. But the French is ambiguous since we have both the word "sieur" (Pronounced pretty close to "sir" and meaning "lord" ) and "sire" (pronounced close to "Siri" and meaning Majesty). Americans might want to check this video to speak proper modern English: https://youtu.be/d7RTUXKv9KU and learn about diphtongs... It's quite scientific, you know... On 09/16/2018 01:27 PM, howard posner wrote: On Sep 16, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Matthew Daillie wrote: You might be interested in this video which summarizes some of the research carried out by David Crystal et al on English pronunciation at the time of Shakespeare (and Dowland) and the productions of his plays at the Globe theatre using 'Original Pronunciation': https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s Indeed, I was interested enough to have seen it already. It explores the differences between modern Received Pronunciation that London stage actors traditionally use, and the London stage accent of 400 years ago, which is in many ways similar to the way English sounds in Bristol now. Of course, it’s all a little peripheral to the question of whether Shakespeare might have spelled differently in a letter to his wife in Stratford than he would in a play to be spoken in London, or whether anyone would have cared. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
> On Sep 16, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Matthew Daillie > wrote: > > You might be interested in this video which summarizes some of the research > carried out by David Crystal et al on English pronunciation at the time of > Shakespeare (and Dowland) and the productions of his plays at the Globe > theatre using 'Original Pronunciation': > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s Indeed, I was interested enough to have seen it already. It explores the differences between modern Received Pronunciation that London stage actors traditionally use, and the London stage accent of 400 years ago, which is in many ways similar to the way English sounds in Bristol now. Of course, it’s all a little peripheral to the question of whether Shakespeare might have spelled differently in a letter to his wife in Stratford than he would in a play to be spoken in London, or whether anyone would have cared. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Hi Howard, You might be interested in this video which summarizes some of the research carried out by David Crystal et al on English pronunciation at the time of Shakespeare (and Dowland) and the productions of his plays at the Globe theatre using 'Original Pronunciation': https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s There is also an interesting book edited by Timothy McGee entitled 'Singing Early Music - the pronunciation of European languages in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance'. Best, Matthew > On Sep 16, 2018, at 20:59, howard posner wrote: > > We know far more about how to pronounce Beowulf and other pre-1066 writings > than we do about how to pronounce Shakespeare. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
> On Sep 16, 2018, at 5:22 AM, Rainer wrote: > > Have a closer look at the spelling - which became somewhere infamous :) The to-do about Shakespeare’s spelling is really much ado about not much. English spelling was not standardized in his day. English pronunciation itself varied greatly with location, as it does today even after nearly a century of received pronunciation from the BBC. We know far more about how to pronounce Beowulf and other pre-1066 writings than we do about how to pronounce Shakespeare. And while today “correct” spelling in English is regarded as essential to an educated person (in no small part because spelling in English is so difficult and irrational), education in Shakespeare’s time meant facility in Latin. I’m particularly amused at the Oxfordians, who make such a fuss about the different ways Shakespeare spelled his name, but don’t think the Earl of Oxford’s multiple spellings of “Oxford” are at all significant. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
And this, Gentle Souls, is why the old Book of Common Prayer is such a literary joy! On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 7:23 AM Rainer <[1]rads.bera_g...@t-online.de> wrote: Have a closer look at the spelling - which became somewhere infamous :) Rainer On 16.09.2018 14:06, EDWARDS DAVID wrote: > Mary Boleyn? > > On 16 September 2018 at 09:49 Rainer <[2]rads.bera_g...@t-online.de> wrote: > > Dear lute netters, > > a little puzzle for fans of Elizabethan music and literature (do not use > Google!) > > Who can guess the writer of this pearl of Elizabethan letter-writing? > > Dearesste Anna > > AS thou haste alwaye founde me toe mye Worde moste trewe soe thou shalt see > I have stryctlye kepte mye promyse I praye you perfume thys mye poore Locke > withe thye balmye Eysses forre thenne indeede shalle Kynges themmeselves > bowe ande paye hommage toe itte ... > > Rainer > > To get on or off this list see list information at > [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > -- References 1. mailto:rads.bera_g...@t-online.de 2. mailto:rads.bera_g...@t-online.de 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Have a closer look at the spelling - which became somewhere infamous :) Rainer On 16.09.2018 14:06, EDWARDS DAVID wrote: Mary Boleyn? On 16 September 2018 at 09:49 Rainer wrote: Dear lute netters, a little puzzle for fans of Elizabethan music and literature (do not use Google!) Who can guess the writer of this pearl of Elizabethan letter-writing? Dearesste Anna AS thou haste alwaye founde me toe mye Worde moste trewe soe thou shalt see I have stryctlye kepte mye promyse I praye you perfume thys mye poore Locke withe thye balmye Eysses forre thenne indeede shalle Kynges themmeselves bowe ande paye hommage toe itte ... Rainer To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[LUTE] Re: The awful English language
Well, ytt is signéd bye one 'Rainer'! ;) Joe the Word Botcher Originalnachricht Von: Rainer Gesendet: Sonntag, 16. September 2018 11:49 An: Lute net Antwort an: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu Betreff: [LUTE] The awful English language Dear lute netters, a little puzzle for fans of Elizabethan music and literature (do not use Google!) Who can guess the writer of this pearl of Elizabethan letter-writing? Dearesste Anna AS thou haste alwaye founde me toe mye Worde moste trewe soe thou shalt see I have stryctlye kepte mye promyse I praye you perfume thys mye poore Locke withe thye balmye Eysses forre thenne indeede shalle Kynges themmeselves bowe ande paye hommage toe itte ... Rainer To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
